explaining that a prior, uncounseled DUII conviction could not be used to support a later felony DUII charge unless the defendant was made aware of the risks and disadvantages of self-representation
How later courts described this case
- explaining that a prior, uncounseled DUII conviction could not be used to support a later felony DUII charge unless the defendant was made aware of the risks and disadvantages of self-representation
- although a colloquy on the record is the preferred method of establishing that a waiver of the right to counsel was made knowingly, we will affirm a trial court’s accep- tance of a defendant’s waiver where, under the totality of the circumstances, the record reflects that the defendant knew of the right to counsel and understood the risks of self-representation
- “[A] defendant’s abstract knowledge that there may be risks or disadvantages of self-representation, without any appreciation of what those risks might be, is insufficient.”
- observing that the Meyrick court’s “no cat- echism” approach “explicitly disclaims such a formalistic approach”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WOLLHEIM, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the analysis and result of the majority opinion. I write only to emphasize the limited scope of our holding, lest we see a plethora of collateral attacks on the written waivers of counsel used by justice courts throughout Oregon.
Our result in this instance is substantially due to several factors worth repeating. The first factor is the extremely limited record of the circumstances concerning defendant’s waiver at the Florence Justice Court. The second factor is the total lack of evidence concerning defendant’s age, experience and education, and mental capacity presented to the trial court. The final factor concerns the great deference we accord the trial court’s determinations in instances such *426 as this. Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or 485 , 443 P2d 621 (1968). Without elaborating on those factors, it is worth observing that it is their combined effect in this instance that leads us to the result we reach.
As the majority recognizes, this case is remarkable. 172 Or App at 419. Likewise, I believe the result here, which is the correct one, is similarly remarkable.